Hunt

"Safety isn't optional, but the Guide is, eh?"

Well, no, it isn't--at least not the parts that are in bold type. The Guide says that these are "rules and policies" of BSA. If you signed the adult volunteer application, you agreed to follow the rules and regulations of BSA. In addition, the Charter Agreement obligates the CO to follow the policies of BSA (in addition to its own).

Now some people may think that those agreements make you morally if not legally obligated to follow to the letter every BSA rule, regulation, and guideline. I wouldn't go that far, but at the very least they obligate you to follow those that BSA clearly indicates are required--to me, that means the safety rules in bold print in the Guide, and the requirements for membership and advancement. Saying the Guide is optional, in my mind, would be like saying that a troop could choose the option of requiring fewer or different merit badges for Eagle, or the option of letting girls or 8-year-old boys join.

"It's the uniform trifecta!

BSA shirts, pants and oh my gosh, neckerchiefs on each of them!"

Well, yes, but...if you look close, one of the boys is wearing his MB sash, and has a folded OA sash on his belt. Still, they look pretty good.

"Who's running a good program? What should be done with Troop 1? With Troop 2?"

I'll bite. Both are running programs with strengths and weaknesses, like virtually every other Troop there is. However, I'm not prepared to say that the many successes of Troop 2 somehow prove that all of their deviations from BSA's program are good ideas. In particular, their choice to ignore the requirements of the Guide to Safe Scouting is a very bad idea, and I think a UC would have a duty to remind them that these requirements are not optional. Also, a number of the rules and practices of this troop suggest to me that it is run by the adults and not the boys (retesting and failure of BORs is often the tipoff for this). Troop 1, for that matter, may also be too adult-run--here the tipoff is complete uniforming, by the book, even on outings. So I would say that both programs may be doing good things, but both could be doing better. One way to improve performance at anything is to consider what the experts have to say about it--and BSA is the expert on its program. That doesn't mean that BSA (or any expert) is always right--but without some pretty good reason to think otherwise, BSA probably has a good understanding of what works well.

The problem I have with these stages is that it's pretty easy to use rhetoric to make a person who is at this level:

2. Self-interest: I do it because Ill get what I want.

seem like he is at this level:

6. Universal Principles: The rules are irrelevant. I do what is categorically right each time I make a choice.

It's just a matter of stating the Universal Principles in a way that line up with what he wants to do. I think reigning in that kind of cleverness is one of the reasons we have to have some rules.

"Growing up in the 80's I never heard of scouts not wanting to wear the uniform."

I grew up in the '70's, and it was an issue then. In fact, an abrupt change to strict uniforming (like the one Gearshocker described) was one of the things that soured me on my Troop and caused me to quit. I think this kind of abrupt change is typically a sign that adult leaders have decided to "take charge."

I think a local community newspaper would be interested in this and would write an article. The troop should state what its intention is if the owner does not come forward--I guess I would suggest donating it to a local museum rather than selling it. I think there is a strong likelihood that the donor did not realize that the flag was historic (if it is in fact old) and that you shouldn't assume that the donor particularly wanted it to be destroyed.

"Reality is that I have every confidence that the good scouters here run delightful programs. While I disagree with some of their interpretations/adaptations of the requirements personally, I support them in their efforts."

But I think you know that this isn't reality--in fact, some scouters run programs that are not in the best interests of the boys--sometimes only in small ways, but sometimes in big ways. I don't think the right response to that is simply to say that they are volunteers and we should support their efforts, right or wrong. Instead, we should try to help them improve their programs--indeed, that's why many people come to this forum, to find out ways to improve their programs. In some cases that means understanding how deviations from the BSA program can reduce the program's benefits. So when somebody comes on the forum and says, "We have scouts on BORs for lower ranks," I'm not going to say that it's great if it works for them; rather, I'm going to point out that this is not the BSA program AND explain WHY I agree with the BSA's approach.

I'd just like to mention for the sake of those who may be reading this who are not steeped in the rules, that there is a difference between "two-deep leadership" and "no one-on-one contact." Two-deep adult leadership is required on trips and outings--it is not required for meetings (although it is a good idea). No one-on-one contact means that an adult should never be completely alone with a boy (who is not his son)--but this doesn't mean that somebody else has to be able to hear what they are saying. They just have to be within view of others. Also, a single adult can be with two or more boys--ie, when they are having a merit badge counseling session--there does not have to be another adult there. There can also be two or more boys in a car with a single adult.

"I could answer your questions but you really would not like my answers because they dont fit your profile. Yes, you are guilty of profiling. You are supporting the notion that basing a decision on the fact that a person is White and Male is justified."

No, I was making the point that minorities are profiled and stereotyped in ways that actually harm them much more often in our society than are white males. I would certainly agree that even white males are unfairly categorized at times, but I think Chris Rock was right. I mean, look at the discussions of Barack Obama, with lots of pundits saying that America may not be "ready" for a black president.

I don't think this is a good example of a "tweak," because all Beavah and acco really did here was to interpret what the requirement means. I don't think these were "adaptations" at all. An adaptation or tweak might be to say that we'll substitute curls with a small dumbell for the pull-ups.

Also, if you're going to assume the power to interpret the aims for yourself, and then tweak the requirements to meet your version of the aims, it seems to me that you really can end up on the slippery slope that leads you to something too far removed from the BSA program.

Was what he did wrong? Yes.

Was it a crime? No, it was not a crime. His forgery did not have any legal significance. Note that he didn't even forge a blue card, but rather a worksheet. Advancement within the Boy Scouts, which is a private, voluntary organization, does not have legal significance.

Let me put this another way: this forgery was wrong, but is not a crime, in the same way the boy's lies to the BOR were wrong, but were not the crime of perjury.

I do think this is a serious matter, because I don't see much in the way of extenuating circumstances here--it seems to be a boy who just wants to lie to get out of doing the requirements. One consequence of this should be that you don't believe anything he says until he has done a great deal to earn your confidence.

"2 Years and still can't do a pull-up?"

Some of us have gone more than 40 years without being able to do one. Depending on the ratio of the boy's body weight to his upper arm strength, he may simply not be able to do enough in 30 days to go from 0 to 1. I think it is absurd, bordering on cruel, to hold a boy's advancement to Tenderfoot for 2 years solely based on this single element of a multi-part requirement, especially if it's agreed that he has tried hard and has done his best. I agree with the suggestions to allow him to show improvement in a partial pullup or in a flexed arm-hang over 30 days, starting now--although I think an even better approach would be to just forget it, accept the improvement in the other elements of the fitness requirement, and do some serious reexamination of what advancement is all about.

"A person is guilty of forgery in the third degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument."

The problem here is that a forged blue card does not harm ANOTHER, except in a pretty attenuated way. I suppose a (weak) argument could be made that it defrauds the troop because they might spend a couple of bucks on a patch. Here's a good explanation of the element of the crime that's missing here:

"The document or writing has to have some legal significance affecting at least another person's right to something, usually some property right, broadly defined to include intellectual property like the form of a signature. Legal significance is distinguished from social significance. A writing of social significance cannot be the subject of forgery; e.g., a letter of introduction. Similarly, if you found an old book by a famous author and wrote their signature inside the front cover to make it look like an autographed edition, you would not be guilty of forgery because this has social, and not legal significance. But, if you were to sell the autographed book at an auction, you would be guilty of false pretenses."

Similarly, the forged excuse note would not have legal significance to anybody but the student.

But even if you stretch a point and argue that these sorts of things might theoretically fit within the definition of the crime, I continue to think that it would be extremely unlikely that any police department would be interested in the slightest in pursuing this as a criminal matter, unless it was somebody who knew you and wanted to humor you.

"I would already be at the police swearing out a complaint for forgery. This is not an issue where a scout cheated on a requirement, HE BROKE THE LAW, in a big way and needs to be treated accordingly. This is serious business and needs to be corrected right now. The committee has no business discussing this, it should be turned over to law enforcement for proper action."

Hold on, now. This kind of forgery is probably not a crime, because it was not done for the purposes of theft or fraud. While it gets a benefit for the boy, it doesn't financially harm anybody else. It is like forging your parent's name on an excuse slip for school--that isn't a crime either. The police would not be interested in this.

Also, we don't know what exactly the boy forged. The worst, in my opinion, would be if he forged the MBC's name and never did the work at all. Next worst would if he did the work, but couldn't reach the MBC and forged the signature. Not quite as bad, but still bad, would be if he forged the SM's signature authorizing him to start work on the MB. But perhaps what he forged was some element of the particular badge--again, still bad, but how bad depends on what it is. We don't have enough information to make a judgment of what should be done, or how serious the consequences should be.

I'd like to pick up on the difference between being in a rut and holding on to a tradition. I don't think you can differentiate between these baseed on the nature of the activity. I think the difference is in the attitude of the group toward the activity. For example, I agree that the fishing trip was a "rut," because few really wanted to do it. On the other hand, for my son's troop, there are "traditional" events (like an annual pancake breakfast) that everybody looks forward to...nobody wants to change it. It seems to me that the same would be true for more ceremonial traditions like ceremonies and uniform practices--how much is the tradition valued, and even more importantly, by whom it is valued. If it is really only valued by the adult leaders, and the boys go along with it to humor the adults, I think it is also a rut. Perhaps a way to determine what category something is in would be to discretely ask individual boys "why does this troop do ....?" If he says "because Mr. SM requires it," I think you have an adult-run tradition. If he says something like, "We like to look better than the other troops," you have a boy-supported tradition. If he says, "I have no idea," then it's probably a rut.

"Just how do I have an advantage over non white non males?"

When you go into a nice store, do the clerks follow you around because they are afraid you are there to steal? Have you ever been pulled over because the police were wondering what you were doing in the wrong neighborhood? Have you ever had anybody question whether you were really an American citizen or not because of your name? This stuff still happens, and for people to whom it has happened, racially-based jokes at their expense just aren't that funny. Granted, part of the reason whites on average have more advantages than blacks on average is economic, but that isn't all of it. It's funny when the few and the weak are able to put one over on the strong and the many, but the reverse is just not as funny.

"I firmly believe that if you happen to be part of the object group, and you find a joke offensive, GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON. I'll bet that everyone at some point in their life has told a joke at someone else's expense. It is part of life - always has been and always will be. Accept that diversity in our society means that there will always be people (good people) who enjoy poking a little fun at someone else. And I think we all know that a pendulum swings both ways. If you don't identify with a group's/person's behavior, remove yourself from the situation."

Are you perhaps a white, American male? I'm not sure I've ever heard this argument made by anybody who wasn't. Strange, isn't it?

This is spun off from a uniforming thread, and mention of a troop with traditions of strict uniforming and consequences for incomplete uniforms. This got me to thinking about where there may be a tension between troop traditions and boy leadership. In my son's troop, we had some issues of this kind with activities the troop "always" does--until we learned that none of the boys currently in the troop were all that interested in the activity (fishing, for example). To what extent should the current PLC be influenced by troop traditions? Of course, the boys may want to carry on traditions that they agree with and understand...but what should adult leaders do when the boys propose changing a cherished (at least by the adults) tradition of the troop?

They're not perfect, but I like them much more than the old ones. There's at least one boy in my son's troop whose whole attitude about the uniform has changed because of the new pants.

Note: if you're planning to buy a pair, make sure you try them on first--the sizes are a bit off.

Yes, the Tenderfoot rank requires knowing the patrol yell, flag, etc. But even that rank has a separate Scout Spirit requirement, so Scout Spirit is something else. I'm not arguing about whether a patrol should have a yell and a flag--I'm just saying that it's not part of Scout Spirit, it's something else, and I maintain it has more to do with how the patrol leader understands his duties.

"You should continue to set the example by wearing your uniform."

I essentially agree with this, but with some reservation. How do you look in your uniform? Not to be offensive, but will people want to look like you do? For example, are you a very big guy (and I don't necessarily mean overweight)? If so, are you wearing a standard teeny-tiny neckerchief? Maybe no necker would be better if the troop isn't wearing them. Also, what's your approach and personality like? Are you the person who is going to try to impose all kinds of rules, restrictions, requirements, procedures, etc. on a troop that hasn't had them? If so, the boys will associate the uniform with that approach, and the association may not be a favorable one. To put it another way, what will you do through your own behavior to make others want to be more like you, and to dress more like you? Please note I'm talking hypothetically, because I can't tell from your post what you're like.

"The neckerchief is not required unless the scout wishes to get attendance for attending a meeting, participating in a BOR, COH, flag ceremony, meals, or vehicle ride to any activity. So far the boys have been really into wearing the neckerchief."

Wow, your PLC is tough! It was the PLC that decided on this requirement, right?

"The neckerchief is not required unless the scout wishes to get attendance for attending a meeting, participating in a BOR, COH, flag ceremony, meals, or vehicle ride to any activity. So far the boys have been really into wearing the neckerchief."

Wow, your PLC is tough! It was the PLC that decided on this requirement, right?

"As far as Scout Spirit goes, what do you SM's out there do when it comes time to "sign off" on Scout Spirit if the patrols don't have flags, yells, or calls? Is it just in the requirements list to take up space? It seems to me that's part of Scout Spirit. Wearing the uniform, giving the yell, having the flag, as well as living the Scout Oath and Law."

While I think these things are good and show a kind of spirit (or esprit), I don't think they are part of Scout Spirit for purposes of advancement--that is defined as living the Oath and Law in the Scout's daily life. I see nothing wrong with a SM or BOR questioning a boy about these items, but I think to require them in order to pass Scout Spirit would be adding requirements. On further thought, I think the way a SM who highly values these expressions of esprit should handle it is when discussing POR responsibilities with a new patrol leader.

"Also, the CO has the ability to choose its leadership. But how can a church as a CO just implement that with an established unit?"

The CO can choose new leaders if it wants to. As far as I know, most COs don't do this. But a church that wants to limit membership/leadership to members of the church might do so. So you have to be careful in choosing a church as CO.

"We have at least 4 Baptist churches in the area that I know of (2 are Primitive *not sure what that means actually*, one "Bible" Church, one Catholic church, one Lutheran church and one Methodist church. Other than that, we have a Sonic, a Radio Shack, a Dairy Queen, a Chevy dealer, and some ice houses (gas station/convenience stores), a very small local market, a few other mom & pop stores, small locally-owned restaurants, one Dollar General, one roadhouse/bar - and a partridge in a pear tree."

From this group, I suggest you start with the Methodist church. Methodist churches sponsor many units, and I have never heard of one limiting members or leaders to church members. It is also mainstream or middle of the road, and is thus less likely to turn off anybody in your troop (all this depends on the specific church, but in general this would be the case). Perhaps you could have the troop sponsored not by the church itself, but by the church's men's group, if it has one. The next choice to me would be the Lutheran church, which should also be fairly middle of the road. Baptist churches come in several varieties, so one of them may work. The car dealership might work, but you're not likely to get a place to meet out of it. Are you sure there are no fraternal groups? Ruritans, maybe? How about the volunteer fire department, if it's a private entity?